why so much love for lyle.....

Choklab,

I think you take the dismissal of Cleveland Williams to an untenable extreme.
Yes, he's grossly overrated by a few Liston-ites and lovers of big muscular punchers with badass nicknames, BUT he did prove to be on the same level as Ernie Terrell, or an early 60s Eddie Machen.
Cassius Clay's management did have apprehensions about matching their boy with "The Big Cat", and even as a title challenger in 1966 they were put an ease only by the knowledge that Williams had been seriously ill and weakened by being shot up by a police man with a .357 magnum.

Williams was fed cannon fodder for most of his career, but when he did step up against Terrell and Machen he acquitted himself well.
There's little evidence that he'd be especially vulnerable to decent boxers. I think he'd be more vulnerable to fellow punchers, personally.

 

A mere three months after gaining a hotly disputed SD against Williams, Terrell went on to win a clear decision over Folley.
So if you're going to say he was much better just 3 months later, perhaps because Williams taught him something !

Williams easily beat 2nd and 3rd tier guys like Billy Daniels, Roger Rischer, etc.
I wouldn't usually mention those guys but on another thread you wrote about 60s British HWs :
......
"
Cooper, richardson, erskine and London colectivly beat the likes of folley, roy harris, radmacher, ezzard charles, bob baker, chuvalo, miteff, bethea, willie pastrano, hubert hilton and roger rischer who were all rated contenders when beaten by the british crop "


..... well, Williams blasted out some of those guys.

A completely shot Williams actually gave Chuvalo a tough fight, too.

 

I agree with you 80%. williams was a contender and exciting up to a level. He just was not a world beater.
There have been a lot of contenders over the years of the same level as machen and terrell who never get a look in in debates. I think williams is behind machen, IMO I think terrell by the ali fight was a better fighter than williams ever beat.

Without an actual win over a good rated fighter I think saying williams "holds his own" with decent contenders without being the best, is as far as I can go..

a draw with machen is prety good.

 

But I was defending those guys as at least as good as other contenders who registered those kinds of wins.
If anyone came out and said that those British heavy’s were on par with Williams because they beat the same guys they would be ridiculed. This is the notion I am defending. We cannot rate a fighters worth on what he could do just because of how bad ass he looked, or how brave he was losing, but on what who he could beat.
Williams was dangerous, he could hold his own with good contenders but so can a lot of other fighters.
If anyone comes on here and says Williams was outright rubbish I would defend williams too. Williams was game, always fought to win, just was not a world beater.

 

Yes, and I don't think Williams was any less of a fighter than Ron Lyle, for example. And in fact, I think he'd probably do better against Quarry.
And Quarry was no world beater either. :good

 

Agreed. williams wasnt better than lyle and quarry was not quite a world beater either.

quarry had better wins than williams by a long chalk. I would put williams behind quarry IMO. Resume wise williams to me is a bit like coetzee without the key wins. no shame in that, coetzee drew with prime thomas. :good